XAPIHub MCP Extension

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include (e.g., fields returned). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Get current user details') and includes necessary context ('from XAPIHub API'). Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. With no annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets a basic threshold for a straightforward read operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't introduce confusion or redundancy.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current user details'), specifying the source ('from XAPIHub API'). It distinguishes this from siblings like get_accessed_organizations or get_recent_accessed_projects by focusing on user details rather than organizations or projects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., get_api_details might also retrieve user-related API info).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., authentication state), or comparisons to sibling tools like get_api_details or search_projects. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.